Headlines

William Happer

Global warming models are wrong again

CO2 is not a pollutant. Life on earth flourished for hundreds of millions of years at much higher CO2 levels than we see today. Increasing CO2 levels will be a net benefit because cultivated plants grow better and are more resistant to drought at higher CO2 levels, and because warming and other supposedly harmful effects of CO2 have been greatly exaggerated. Nations with affordable energy from fossil fuels are more prosperous and healthy than those without.

The direct warming due to doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be calculated to cause a warming of about one degree Celsius. The IPCC computer models predict a much larger warming, three degrees Celsius or even more, because they assume changes in water vapor or clouds that supposedly amplify the direct warming from CO2. Many lines of observational evidence suggest that this “positive feedback” also has been greatly exaggerated.

There has indeed been some warming, perhaps about 0.8 degrees Celsius, since the end of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early 1800s. Some of that warming has probably come from increased amounts of CO2, but the timing of the warming—much of it before CO2 levels had increased appreciably—suggests that a substantial fraction of the warming is from natural causes that have nothing to do with mankind.

Many lines of observational evidence suggest that this “positive feedback” also has been greatly exaggerated.

This is it – right here.

Global warming alarmists claim that the earth’s climate system is incredibly unstable due to positive feedback. This is pure stupidity and suggests that the earth’s climate system would have already experienced runaway heating during historical warm periods.

Negative feedback is much more likely.

The good news is that climate “scientists” are openly admitting that their models assume positive feedback and more and more “real” scientists are starting to call bu11sh1t on it.

And yet, we continue down the destructive path of CO2 reduction. If they wanted to sell the new regs on coal as a fix for acid rain, I could maybe buy into that. But this CO2 hoax…are our elected officials really that easy to fool?

President Obama is reported to have said: “It gets you a little nervous about what is happening to global temperatures. When it is 75 degrees in Chicago in the beginning of March, you start thinking. On the other hand, I really have enjoyed nice weather.”

LOL. Maybe the cool morning this morning will get him to stop convulsing in fear. Just keep the nuclear football away from that nervous psycho on really nice days, please. No telling what he’s liable to do.

The quoted passage is exactly my position on the issue. I accept that CO2 theoretically should cause about 1.1C of warming per doubling before any feedbacks are considered. I accept that there has been some warming since the Little Ice Age ended, though only a portion of it is due to CO2.

It’s the feedbacks, stupid, which nature is showing us are negative and cause me to reject the global warming mantra from the scientific perspective.

If the media would define ‘consensus’, which is very close to my first paragraph, we might actually get somewhere. They and the alarmists, but I repeat myself, leave the definition vague for a reason.

On the political side, we all smell that the proposed ‘solutions’ are a hoax that are using ‘Climate Change’ as the excuse to demand their preferred wealth transfer policies.

Only a handful of idiots believe in Global Warming-Cooling-Climate Change. The players know it is a game and the goal is to decrease personal liberty, increase government control, and make a LOT of money (hello GE, Solyndra, etc.)

Have you seen how much CO2 is injected into the atmosphere from a volcanic eruption? We need to get the EPA to ban volcanoes, someone call their tip line.

Bishop on March 27, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Good point! I read somewhere that there are four separate volcanic events within recorded history that have each spewed more pollutants into our atmosphere than than the sum total of those made by man since he discovered how to start fires. High time we banned them, earthquakes and tsunamis too!

Global warming alarmists claim that the earth’s climate system is incredibly unstable due to positive feedback. This is pure stupidity and suggests that the earth’s climate system would have already experienced runaway heating during historical warm periods.

Negative feedback is much more likely.

blink

Is it any wonder that those who have experience with systems and controls, aka engineers, tend to be the bulk of skeptics?

But these ominous predictions are based on computer models. It is important to distinguish between what the climate is actually doing and what computer models predict. The observed response of the climate to more CO2 is not in good agreement with model predictions.

If the models accurately predicted anything, it would be from pure luck. Trying to forecast the future behavior of an enormous and chaotic non-linear system with thousands of variables will always be just an educated guess at best. Add the huge amount of confirmation bias that has clearly polluted these predictions, and you end up with a computerized version of tea leaf reading.

It also doesn’t help when these models virtually ignore the big ball in the sky that is setting off the equivalent of millions of nuclear explosions every second, and does so to varying degrees that are wholly unpredictable. But that’s just one of many variables that have been either discarded or magnified depending on their usefulness in arriving at a pre-determined conclusion.

In other words, the methodology upon which the warmists have based the entire AGW hypothesis is flawed from the outset and is nothing more than a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess).

It’s particularly ironic that these idiots come from, ostensibly, the same area from which Lorenz was one of the first to identify sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaotic systems and the impossibility of making accurate long-term predictions … He must be spinning in his grave.

Further, the economy is a much less complicated system that econometric models have been struggling at predicting (with poor results) for decades, with much better brains and much more money working on them.

It has been intellectually offensive that anyone ever took these global warming lunatics seriously.